Consumer court junks medical negligence complaint against hospital, gynaecologist in fetal death case
No Medical Negligence
Nainital: Noting that there was no medical evidence to prove negligence, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, recently dismissed an appeal filed against a hospital and a gynaecologist in a case alleging medical negligence during pregnancy treatment that resulted in the death of a six-month fetus.
The Commission, comprising Ms Kumkum Ran (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), upheld the 2019 order of the District Consumer Forum, which had earlier dismissed the complaint after finding no proof of medical negligence against the treating doctor.
While dismissing the appeal on the same ground, the State Commission held,
"Apart from above, there is nothing on record having been produced by the appellants to even remotely show that there was any sort of medical negligence or professional misconduct on the part of respondent No. 2 (Gynaecologist) while treating appellant No. 2, the wife of appellant."
The history of the incident dates back to 2013 when the appellant got his pregnant wife treated at the concerned Maternity & Trauma Centre under the supervision of the treating gynaecologist. During the consultation, the doctor assured the appellants that the pregnancy was normal and that the hospital was fully equipped to handle any emergency.
From June to October 2013, the patient underwent several check-ups, tests and ultrasounds as advised, and each time the reports were stated to be normal. However, in late October 2013, she developed severe abdominal pain. Despite repeated visits and further tests, the doctor allegedly continued to assure that the fetus was normal.
On 07.11.2013, after another ultrasound, the appellants were informed that the fetus had died. When questioned about the cause, the gynaecologist allegedly asked them to leave and denied any guarantee of childbirth.
On 08.11.2013, the woman was taken to another doctor, who advised immediate medical termination of pregnancy. The procedure was conducted the same day at a different maternity centre, and her life was saved.
Thereafter, alleging gross medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the hospital and the treating gynaecologist, the appellants filed a complaint before the District Commission.
The hospital submitted before the District Commission that it agreed with the written statement filed by the gynaecologist and has nothing further to add. It sought dismissal of the complaint.
In her written statement, the doctor, qualified and experienced Gynaecologist & Obstetrician, contended that the woman took treatment of her own choice and was never compelled to consult her exclusively.
It was submitted that she first consulted the doctor on 29.06.2013 when she was already two months pregnant. Although ultrasound was advised, she allegedly delayed getting it done and did not always adhere to medical advice. The doctor claimed that there were gaps in follow-up visits and that the appellants failed to explain where the woman was receiving treatment during those periods.
The doctor further argued that an ultrasound is essential to monitor fetal development, but a doctor can merely give advice, and regular & proper treatment depends upon the patient. She denied giving any assurance regarding childbirth. On 07.11.2013, when the ultrasound report showed fetal death, she advised medical termination of pregnancy. However, the woman chose to consult Dr ** despite the availability of nearby hospitals.
The doctor also relied on the records of another Maternity Centre, stating that the woman's blood pressure and vitals were normal and there was no life-threatening condition noted. She denied any medical negligence and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
After hearing the parties and examining the record, the District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint. Aggrieved by this decision, the couple filed the present appeal before the Commission.
State Commission's observation
The Commission noted that the main allegation of the couple was that the hospital and the treating doctor committed medical negligence, resulting in the death of the fetus.
The Commission observed that the husband had earlier initiated criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC against the doctor. An Expert Committee was constituted at the direction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The Committee found no negligence on the part of the doctor, following which the complaint was dismissed in 2014.
Although the revision petition filed by him, the Commission said that it was initially allowed by the Sessions Court, the matter was later taken to the High Court of Uttarakhand, which, by order dated 19.06.2025, set aside the Sessions Court’s order and held that no case of medical negligence was made out against the doctor.
The Commission noted, "In paragraph No. 10 of its order, Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has held in so many words that, 'In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent No. 2 has failed to make out any case of medical negligence against the applicant'."
The Commission further remarked that the Uttarakhand Medical Council had also found no professional misconduct on the part of the doctors. It said,
"It would not be out of place to mention here that against the order passed by Uttarakhand Medical Council, thereby holding that there has been no professional misconduct and medical negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 in the treatment administered to appellant No. 2, an appeal dated 30.09.2015 was filed by appellant No. 2 before the Ethics Committee, who discussed the matter in its meeting held on 30.06.2016."
The Commission observed that apart from these proceedings, the appellants had not produced any independent medical evidence to establish negligence.
Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) and Dr Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh (2021), the Commission reiterated that medical negligence cannot be presumed merely because treatment failed or the patient suffered an adverse outcome. There must be clear medical evidence showing a breach of standard care.
In view of these findings, the Commission held that the District Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint.
"For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the District Commission has properly considered the material available on record and has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint per impugned judgment and order, which does not call for any interference and is fit to be confirmed. The appeal being bereft of merit, warrants dismissal," observed the Commssion.
Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the same.
To view the order, click on the link below:
